Stranger with My Face

2009
5.2| 1h36m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 26 August 2009 Released
Producted By: Bauman Entertainment
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: http://www.mylifetime.com/movies/stranger-with-my-face
Info

After the shocking and untimely death of her husband, Shelley Stratton (Catherine Hicks) moves her daughter Alexis (Emily Hurst) and her adopted daughter, Laurie (Alexz Johnson), to their remote summer house in hopes of giving her family a fresh start. As Laurie begins to settle in and put her life back together, she gets the eerie feeling that she is constantly being watched. Laurie's uneasiness grows when people start claiming to see her in places that she has never been. The family's delicate state begins to unravel when Laurie unearths the dark past, discovering a twin sister that she never knew she had. Laurie is forced to delve deeper into her twin's secrets, for as it turns out her twin has been locked up for years! Laurie must now understand their strange connection in order to prevent her sister from taking over her life and harming her loved ones. Based on the book by author Lois Duncan

Watch Online

Stranger with My Face (2009) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Jeff Renfroe

Production Companies

Bauman Entertainment

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial
Watch Now
Stranger with My Face Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Stranger with My Face Audience Reviews

UnowPriceless hyped garbage
SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.
SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."
Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.
yonafarkash comparing the movie with the book is a mistake. using the book as a jumping off point for the movie is a better choice. i thought that the tone of the movie was what the book was aiming for. as a comparison, i thought the feel of i know what you did last summer was totally off in the movie as compared to what the author was aiming at in the novel. i think alexz played both characters very well, the last scene was totally perfect. personally i wish the look was more 70s which is when the book was written, it was weird to see it updated to a modern version. i read the book all through the 80s. in general i am a Lois Duncan fan and i think her novels are very original and can be used as new ideas for movies, because so many movies use the same plots with different characters.
Eminemgirl31691 I watched this movie recently and thought it was fascinating. I did not read the book, but watched this movie because I am a huge Alexz Johnson fan. I thought she did an amazing job playing twins, especially the evil one. Its amazing that someone with such an amazing voice and musical talents can also be such a wonderful actress. I thought the plot was very interesting and Alexz was convincing as the evil twin, it was a little frightening. To the people who are angry that it wasn't exactly like the book: when was a book ever made into a movie that was exactly like the book? Never, it's impossible, to make a book into a movie, things are always changed, elaborated, etc. for various reasons to make the movie better, more interesting, because of the director, and for many other reasons. The movie should be judged as a movie not as a book. :)
Sugarbehr1967 I waited and waited and waited for this movie to get better, and when it did, it was too late. I kept referring back to the book, which was very detailed, and although I understand it is normal to take poetic license with a book, there were a few glaring errors: (WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS)1. James Stratton doesn't die in the book, and it is Shelley (the mother) who is the painter, NOT Laurie.2. Helen Tuttle is the one who introduces Laurie to 'astral projection' in the novel..they completely destroyed her character in the movie, making her a somewhat psychic, but unbelieving character, making believe that Laurie suddenly 'discovered' astral projection' on her own.3. The Native American aspect was totally ignored, as mentioned in the last post. It is the fetish that is supposed to protect Laurie and has a very prominent story point at the end of the novel.For the most part, it was only during the last part of the movie did the true nature of Lois Duncan's excellent YA novel come through...but for me it was a waste of time. 2 out of 5 stars. I am sure Lois Duncan didn't approve of this. I'd love to hear what she thought.
redxdress I loved this book as a kid and think it's cool to make a movie out of it. But why change so many elements of the story? I don't see why the dad was killed off. Also, more importantly, the main character i the book is supposed to be part Native American (if I remember correctly), yet the actress playing her is blonde. Updates to the story are fine, but there are so few movies with strong, especially female, main characters who are people of color. Why take that out? Were they afraid that people might be offended by (or uninterested in) the depiction of Native American spirituality? There are other changes to the original story, but that's sort of the most obvious one. It's entertaining enough for a TV movie, but disappointing that they had to "update" it to the point of looking like so many other teen suspense movies.